You simply don't understand that its Rudy that has NO CHANCE of beating Hillary, so I question your wisdom.
There are people, a whole darn lot of them, who are registered to vote but aren't political the way you and I are. They look at the candidates and if they see someone on the ballot they like they decide to go vote. If it's someone who really inspires them, they go out in the rain, and they bring a vanload of family and friends to the polls. Most of these people are moral conservatives. If there is no one appealing on the ballot they simply take a pass. Not out of spite, not to send a message, not to "get back" at anyone. They simply see no reason to go to the polls. Like it or not, that's the way it is. In recent years they've done a lot of staying home.
With a strong moral man like Reagan on the ticket, they will come out of the woodwork to vote on election day. In these times of a hairline split electorate, the GOP needs someone with some of that appeal. Rudy as the nominee will throw cold water on such people. While Hillary on the other side will be motivating the commie leftists who often stay home in a way John Kerry and Al Gore never could.
Giuliani will never be President.
I respect your analysis, but point out that I did not say Rudy did, in fact, have the best chance of winning.
I was commenting on your previous post where you said that the reason some here support Rudy was because he "could win."
I was pointing out that winning is an appropriate factor to consider, but that it was wrong for you to conclude that was the only factor Rudy supporters were considering.
So your "questioning my wisdom" because, according to you, I "don't understand that its [sic] Rudy that has NO CHANCE of beating Hillary," is laughable b/c I have never ventured an opinion on whether Rudy coulda/woulda/shoulda beat the Hildebeast.
I have said, however, that if Republicans don't support the Republican nominee, and the Hildabeast is elected, some of the responsibility for her victory goes to those who refused to vote against her.
I understand the phenomenon of the "stay home" crowd. We disagree on what we think is "appealing" to the electorate at large.
But I still would like you to engage my questions I posed previously:
Do you see a difference between (1) voting for Hillary and (2) refusing to vote for her opponent?
I know you would say "no" so long as you claim there is no political difference between Hillary and her opponent, but that is not my question.
IOW, if you vote for Hillary, and she wins, are you responsible for perpetrating her upon the nation?
Then, if you don't vote for Hillary's opponent, and Hillary wins, are you responsible for perpetrating her upon the nation?
Again, please don't answer with "well, her opponent was just as bad, so it didn't matter." My question is, in the scenarios above, would you conclude that your vote/failure to vote helped cause Hillary's victory?